Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Let denote the maximum number of points which can be chosen in a circle of radius such that
for all . (Here is the distance from to the nearest integer.)
Is there some such that
Let denote the maximum number of points which can be chosen in a circle of radius such that
for all . (Here is the distance from to the nearest integer.)
Is there some such that
Source: erdosproblems.com/466
An accepted solution exists. The statement is true.
PROVED, the site's label (page last edited 16 September 2025), which describes the corrected Statement: the commentary credits Graham's construction and Sárközy's power lower bound. The result is recorded as an accepted full claim: Sárközy's Theorem 1 of [Sa76] Part II (Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 11 (1976), refereed; p. 106) gives for and large depending on , so as for every such and in particular for ; the same paper (pp. 105--106) reports Graham's construction, the points with , , which gives for large , the result the site's commentary credits to Graham. Graham's argument is reported by Sárközy with a sketch, while Erdős (1980, 1982) reports Graham's bound without a construction, and no separate paper of Graham's was located, so the claim page rests first-hand on Sárközy's Theorem 1 and reports Graham's construction second-hand, as Sárközy gives it, without depending on it. The derived standing is solved, proved.
The site's display takes its limit in a variable that does not occur in , so read literally the display does not take the limit in the radius, and a comment in the site's discussion thread (11 May 2026) asks for the capital letter. The change replaces the lowercase under the limit by the radius , the only variable the expression contains; nothing else changes. The evidence is Erdős's own statement of the question in his 1982 survey [Er82e], Chapter II, §9, printed p. 67, which writes the radius as throughout and conjectures "", the limit in the radius; Sárközy, who states the question as Erdős's conjecture, writes "" in Part II of [Sa76], printed p. 105, and as (4) in Part I, printed p. 37. The defect is not the site's alone: the 1980 monograph [ErGr80], printed p. 93, prints "" with the lowercase the site reproduces, so the misprint is the monograph's and the site's wording copies it. The site's commentary, which credits Graham and Sárközy with proving the question, answers the corrected statement. The standing judges the corrected Statement.